This website was set up in March 2013 to publicise and channel opposition to the government's radical proposals to transform the teaching of history in schools. The intention was to encourage people to read about the proposals, sign an e-petition against them, read some reactions to them from history teachers, academics and the wider public and find suggestions as to how to make their voices heard in the debate. Many believed that the proposals crossed a very significant and dangerous line by imposing a clear nationalist agenda on history, transforming it from a subject which teaches, among many things, critical thought, into a vehicle for patriotic indoctrination. They also contravened the 1996 Education Actwhich puts a legal obligation on local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to forbid 'the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school'.

In the words of the Historical Association (May 10th 2013, in reply to a speech by Michael Gove): 'only totalitarian regimes want to control what young people think about their past'read reply in full here.

We feared that if the new history curriculum had gone ahead, it would have been a tragedy on many levels:A tragedy... .... for democracy (it would have ended one of the best ways of instilling critical thinking skills in future citizens).... for equality (it marginalised the role of women, non-white groups and ordinary people).... for intellectual freedom (it hijacked the education system for a political agenda).... for history faculties (it would have turned free thinking pupils off history and they would have opted to drop it).... for accountability (it was drawn up in total disregard for expert advice and equality obligations).... for employers (who care more about transferable thinking skills than knowing the date of Magna Carta).... for teachers (as well as morally and professionally objectionable, the curriculum was undeliverable).... for pupils (they would have been subjected to lifeless rote learning of superficial facts about British history; leave school knowing nothing about world affairs and will in many cases be alienated by a curriculum in which they cannot see people like them, with whom to identify)

We are delighted that the campaign of which this website and the linked e-petition were part, succeeded in defeating the proposals.The new National Curriculum for History which was released on 8th July bears no resemblance to the earlier draft which caused such controversy. Read it here, by scrolling down to p204.

In an ironic but predictable second attempt to re-write history, the government is now presenting the changes as gentle tweaks prompted by receptiveness to the advice of experts. In reality they represent a fundamental climbdown and major reversal. The final curriculum is far less prescriptive; far more age-appropriate; it encourages a balance of knowledge and skills rather than simple rote learning; it includes world as well as solely British history and allows for a far broader approach to the subject. Most importantly it does not impose a politically biased agenda on history. In fact it is far more similar to the current National Curriculum than to Gove's first draft.

If the government had listened to history academics, teachers and educationalists in the first place, this is the kind of curriculum that would have been proposed back in February. Instead, Gove tried every possible option to force through his original proposals (including branding his critics Enemies of Promise, evasion of FOI responsibilities and dishonest slurs to denigrate history teachers) before being forced to capitulate in the face of the virtually unanimous opposition of the history community. Even on the day the Guardian published news of his U-turn, he attempted a defiant defence of his original draft at the Wellington Education Festival. This is the way the man entrusted with the education of our children operates, in his attempt to manipulate that education for a political agenda.

The other pages of this website are out of date because they have been left as they were before the government's capitulation, as a reminder of what the original proposals and the campaign against them entailed.

Here are some previous developments which contributed to the campaign to defeat the politicisation of history teaching:

>Our letter raising legal concerns about the government's approach to history, signed by 125 history academics and teachers was published in The Independenton 13th June, along with an article. See 'Legal Implications' page of this website for more detail and comments by some of the signatories.

> The new children's laureate, Malorie Blackman, describes the new history curriculum as 'dangerous', 'inward looking' and likely to 'alienate pupils'. Read more in The Guardian.

>Professor Simon Schama who originally advised the government on the history curriculum lauched a vitriolic attack on it at the Hay Festival, calling it 'insulting', 'pedantic' and 'utopian'and urged history teachers to reject it - read more.

>May 14th: 54 historians from leading British universities write to The Times to defend the Historical Association and demolish Gove's misuse of evidence to denigrate history teaching: 'The key skill that the study of history teaches is the ability to evaluate evidence. Regrettably, what Mr. Gove has demonstrated in his speech is a remarkable capacity for manipulating and distorting it.'

> Michael Gove launches an astonishing attack on his critics, including allegations that history teaching 'infantilises' culture. He finds an unrepresentative resource, misrepresents it and uses it to accuse history teachers of teaching the 'Mr Men' version of history. Read speech in full here. The Historical Association have voiced the anger of history teachers in reply.

> The first meeting of the group Defend School History (April 20th): see events page.

> Click here to read an eloquent account by a current sixth former of why the new curriculum is 'sucking the very soul out of the study of history'.

> Watch Gove in the Commons on Mon 22nd April: still no retreat in shocking politicisation of history - still talking about studying British 'heroes and heroines' and enabling pupils to 'take pride' in Britain.

> On the 20th anniversary of the death of Stephen Lawrence, it is very sad that the Macpherson report's recommendations about how to combat racism through education have been utterly disregarded in the new history curriculum. Click here to read how.

Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen, on the new history curriculum, answering questions in The Observer:

The Macpherson report recommended "that consideration be given to amendment of the national curriculum aimed at valuing cultural diversity and preventing racism, in order better to reflect the needs of a diverse society". In light of Michael Gove's new history curriculum, how successfully is our education system meeting Macpherson's recommendations? Martin Spafford, via emailDoreen Lawrence:"I hated history at school, because it had nothing to do with me. We were taught about empire but not about slavery, what our grandparents and great grandparents went through. I wanted the Macpherson report to ensure that we opened up history lessons so all the kids in the class knew where they were from. If kids just hear that these people are over here taking our jobs, they will believe it. If they hear that in the past Britain has exploited every single aspect of the places where these children come from, then perhaps they will see things differently. Black boys in particular have a sense that their self-worth is not much; we need to change that. All children should have an understanding of the forces that created the country we all live in today."

> The number of organisations opposing the curriculum is growing all the time and includes: the Confederation of British Industry, The Muslim Council of Britain, The Black and Asian Studies Association, Curriculum for Cohesion, Operation Black Vote, The Museums Association and Cambridge Primary Review.

>Even a fan of Gove's savages his history curriculum as 'indoctrination' & 'secularised theology' based on 'myth' of progress - read more

> Revealing and unabridged comments by pupils on 'Pupils' Views' page. Are you a current pupil studying history? Feel you have been denied a voice in this debate? Go to 'pupils' views' page and have your say. The future of history is in your hands!

> Pride, guilt and politics in the history curriculum - how have other countries dealt with this issue? - read more

> FOI Request on the drawing up of the history curriculum turned now: transparency not in the public interest - click here to read more

93% of respondents strongly disagree that everything from Stone Age to 1700 should be taught at primary

96% of our survey respondents thought the new NC was over prescriptive

96.2% of all the secondary teachers surveyed including those at independent schools and the new free schools felt that insufficient attention had been given to the views of history teachers in the development of the new curriculum. That statistic included 100% from the established academies.

Only 7% of respondents agree that their school will follow the new history curriculum and the currently proposed content closely

> FACTS OR SKILLS? AND ARTICLE BY MARTIN SPAFFORD ABOUT THE NEW CURRICULUM'S THREAT TO MULTICULTURALISM (see 'Our Objections' page)

> Threat of civil disobedience over new curriculumreported in The Guardian:Alasdair Smith, history teacher from London, comments "I am just not going to teach a curriculum that leaves children less aware of their world and will turn them off history."

> David Cameron, in hishighly jingoistic speechon Saturday 17th March, spoke of teaching "Kings, Queens, battles, dates –our island's story in all its glory." ('Our Island Story' was apparently his favourite book as a child.)

History, Not Propaganda supports the Education Spring, calling for

an end to politically motivated meddling in education

an end to the distorting effects of short term data driven accountability